Ron Paul – American and Proud

Zo Nails Ron Paul.

By Robert | December 27, 2011

Ron Paul is on the hot seat now. Only because he’s actually been moving up in the polls. Many folks are “Flocking” to the Dr for various reasons. I’ve tried to have some civil discussions with the Paul supporters but as of yet, none of them can explain to me WHY a person like Paul should “Occupy” the White house.

Listen to ZO’s take on it:

When you’re supporters are Stormfront, 9-11 truthers and Code Pink, you gotta ask yourself a few questions don’t you? Well unless you’re so brainwashed by the sound of Ron Paul’s voice that you refuse to see the problem with this…

Ron Paul’s got a lot of explaining to do, not the least of which is his leadership abilities. You can say “Liberty” and “Defense of our liberties” and use “liberty” in every sentence only so much then folks begin to ask questions… Hitler and Obama both started with a very loud, obnoxious supporting cast that included some very extreme elements. do we want to swap one for another? I think not.

I do know that a Ron Paul presidency wouldn’t be confiscating my guns or allowing any federal laws that would have them taken away. But that’s about as far as I can support the man. I’m one who is not interested in living with my head in the sand.

The trouble with Ron Paul…

By Robert | December 21, 2011

There’s many things NOT to like about Dr Paul. his annoying voice, his whining, his erratic speech, his blaming of US for everything wrong in the world etc. But as was pointed out in comments on my questions to Paul supporters he’s got a few things right. Perhaps Paul supporters would be better candidates than Paul himself…just sayin.

Now lets look at some of Ron Paul’s problem areas. Besides the lack of leadership that is abundantly clear (Except for those Paul supporters who worship without question) is his belief that people like Bradly Manning are Hero’s rather than traitors.

Now understand that Ron Paul would like us to go back to the early 1800’s in America, someone like Manning would be tried and hung publicly for treason. Paul now calls this guy a hero. Now I’ll practice a little bit of my own philosophy and say that we can’t measure how many Americans have been killed or captured because of what Bradly Manning put out in public, but I do know that we haven’t had so many CIA agents captured in one year as we have since Manning’s actions…. Now think about this, Ron Paul wants to abolish the CIA too. So is it any wonder that Paul is a Manning Supporter?

Then lets take a look at removing the AC from soldiers in Afghanistan to save money..

Yeah lets take away the ability of R&R after battle in a SEMI comfortable environment to save money… Paul is a strict constitutionalist that’s fine but when our soldiers were sent in to Afghanistan he supported it. PERIOD. Now to say bring them home by making them uncomfortable WTF? Do you honestly think our soldiers would say “Oh that’s it, no AC I’m going home!” that’s not exactly the soldiers mindset. Out of touch much?

There’s also some serious problems regarding newsletters, statements and other such Paulisms that will sink him like a rock in a swimming pool once he gets up a bit in the polls. Now I know the Paul faithful seem to think that Ron Paul’s explanation of those statements and letters are good enough. I’m telling you that in the general election Paul get MOPPED by Obama. Because Paul is left of Obama on foreign policy, and Right of Grover Norquist on economic policy.

The best thing that can happen to the GOP right now would be for Paul, Bachmann, Huntsman and Santorum to step out. Right now the negativity has become helpful to Obama and Paul has become so negative in his campaign that he’s now a pariah… See ya Ron in the loony bin.

Ron Paul: Questions for his supporters…

By Robert | December 16, 2011

Here goes an attempt to open the eyes of some of Ron Paul’s die hard supporters. I know it may be a futile effort but hey I’m in a mood today:

Something has been bugging me about Ron Paul lately and I think I’ve stumbled upon WHY I am so “anti-Paul” as labeled by a few emails I’ve got lately.

First let me explain something. I have tried to be fair and balanced with ALL candidates. I’ve tried to remain very civil in my posts and positive about all of them rather than bash them. I have issues with ALL of them to one degree or another. So without further ado let me ask these questions of Ron Paul’s supporters (Especially YOU “loveronpaul@gmail.com”)

1. Ron Paul has been in congress for over 30 years. He’s never moved up to the senate, he hasn’t gained any more “Sway” in the house than freshman who have just entered the chamber. He’s had many votes where he was among single digit objections to bills and for 30 years that pattern has remained the same. Where do you see “Leadership” potential in Ron Paul? A POTUS must lead, what examples of his leadership in congress are there to draw on?

2. Ron Paul has very hands off approach to foreign policy which is not necessarily a bad thing. However given the state of our world today, do you honestly believe that NO American influence will result in a more positive view of us from abroad? Outside of Iran as a target of war mongering, what should the USA do about helping other nations who are friendly to our nation or not friendly but a humanitarian crisis is occurring?

3. Right now we have a government at a stand still. We wanted the runaway liberal congress stopped and we accomplished that in 2010. With a Ron Paul POTUS how do you think the congress would be received? Many of the spending bills that must be passed do not fall under Ron Paul’s vision and as such he votes against most of them. Would he veto them? And if he wielded that veto pen as often as he suggests he would, what exactly would get done with a Ron Paul Presidency? And what if he was elected to lead a divided congress?.

4. An experiment in Ron Paul’s “Constitutional” absolutism would be the minute pictures of dead babies/women/children in a foreign land started being shown on TV screens across our land. Would Ron Paul be able to maintain his absolutionist, isolation, hands off other nations problems views when he had the power to stop it?

5. Ron Paul stated to a question asked by Meghan Kelly that all SCOTUS Judges were “All bad and All good”… So what should us non-Paulies take from that answer? Where would he tilt the court if he were to nominate 2 judges? IF all of them are equally bad and good, how would he improve that if he had the power to do so?

6. Ron Paul is POTUS and the day he takes office Iran, Syria and Egypt all attack Israel. Israel handles it themselves as Ron says they should. The middle east explodes into war for a solid month. Stock market collapses, oil shoots up to record highs, Israel Nukes Iran the war ends but NO oil is leaving the middle east because lanes of travel are closed. Paul says open up drilling here to create jobs and decrease our dependency on Middle east oil. BUT, the environmentalists, progressive democrats in several oil producing states take the feds to court (Granted by constitutional challenge of the feds by the states) How does a Ron Paul handle the chaos of the 79 gas crisis coupled with a nation of lawyers with opposing views of the constitution? And how long do you think Ron Paul would last under that kind of pressure?

The reason I ask these questions is Ron Paul has done nothing but complain about how things were done, ask WHY we are doing what we are doing and say he wouldn’t have done whatever was done. He has not had to make a decision with peoples lives to this date. He has only had to vote on something along with the rest or vote against it. That always gives him company in his vote. IF he’s elected POTUS the decisions he makes are HIS alone.

This is why I think a governor or at the very least a senator or leader of one or the other is the only folks that should even be considered POTUS. They have had to make decisions on their own with their name on it. They have had to look people in the eyes after a decision has been made and make a case for it. Paul and Bachmann have not had to do that.

So let the emails (For cowards) begin or feel free to drop the answers in the comment section for those of you with a set of nuts who aren’t nuts.

Ron Paul does it again… LOSING.

By Robert | May 12, 2011

HT to Weasel Zippers

Ron Paul Says He Would Not Have Ordered Bin Laden Raid…

(Briefing Room) — Likely GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul said this week he would not have authorized the mission that killed Osama bin Laden, raising concerns about international law.

Paul, a congressman from Texas with a libertarian bent, said that he would have rather worked with the Pakistani government to track down the al Qaeda leader responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

When asked by Iowa radio station WHO if he would have ordered the mission, in which U.S. forces raided bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan, Paul said “Not the way it took place, no.”

As WZ said “For a guy who gets it right on so many domestic spending issues he couldn’t be more wrong when it comes to foreign policy.”

And in order to be considered a viable candidate you must portray a common sense approach to foreign Policy Issues. Agree or disagree with Obama about ordering the killing of UBL, but I can’t see or WANT to see anyone in the office of POTUS that would have NOT ordered the hit. UBL killed 3000 people in one day on 9-11-2001. I wish we could kill him every day for 3,000 days.

Paul just put a dagger in his own back for his latest dumbassery. If Paul is the best the right can do Obama gets 4 more years. Paul, Romney, Trump, Palin, Etc…. 20013 will be the end game of our “Experiment in self rule”….

Libertarians, listen up.

By Robert | May 10, 2011

I’ve given a lot of thought to the “Libertarian” viewpoint. I usually do when Ron Paul’s name comes up. I’m sure it’s purely coincidental that its only around election time…

I’ve heard Ron Paul’s view on our Military, our liberty, our nations spending spree and while I agree with Paul on his spending spree sentiments I have a real problem with his “Liberty” views as well as some of his “Military industrial complex” beliefs.

Let’s start with his “American Liberty” views:

Ron Paul is of the mindset that making drugs legal would reduce the costs to the nation because we’d quit housing drug users/dealers in our prisons and we could then tax the product, which would increase Government revenue. Now, I’m not saying that’s a moonbat approach but I will say it’s dumber than dirt.

I think Ron Paul would have been great to have in power back in the early days of America. If he would have stayed in power through the 1900’s, perhaps his views might not have been seen as so ridiculous. The problem is the genie will not go back in the bottle easily.

The biggest problem with Ron Paul’s position on “Freedom” is there are too many Americans that can’t handle TRUE Liberty. And unless you are willing to outlaw the ACLU and the entire judicial system for about 20 years, Ron Paul’s “vision” is unrealistic. Ron Paul’s entire structure of America revolves around letting people do what they want to do as long as it doesn’t affect OTHERS, but he doesn’t expound about his plan to deal with those who infringe on OTHERS rights.

A simple analogy. A guy up river from you dumps his waste in the river, that’s your drinking water, how do you feel about your neighbors rights to use the river?

What you don’t hear from Ron Paul is consequences. The consequences for actions that step on the rights of others is a big issue with me. For example: If you’re dumb enough to want to sit out on the street and shoot heroin, fine be my guest. It’s called thinning the herd as far as I’m concerned. BUT what about the businesses on that street? What about the home values in the area? What about the kids that have to walk by that idiot on the way to school? What about the crimes this guy commits to get his drugs? Do the people in the area not have rights too? Where do you draw the line?

…